I have been trying for the last several hours to draw together several apparently disparate threads that are in reality closely aligned all into some kind of coherent message that I can convey here.

Unfortunately for me, although I can see the connections and the patterns within, they are far from easy to illustrate and describe effectively.

What Joe Gandelman wrote in response to the Karl Rove/CIA Operative outing imbroglio seems particularly apropos (including the quoting of Paul Krugman, included for easier comprehension, italics and boldface kept from the original post):

From Krugman:

But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration’s supporters to obediently accept a changing story line….Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don’t have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person’s effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they’ll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy….

If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we’re getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven’t just gone along with the diversionary tactics…They’re now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn’t just about Mr. Rove. It’s also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush’s father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it’s about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

MOST TROUBLING: Now that we indeed ARE at “this point,” how possible or unlikely is it that we can now UNGET to “this point”? Can we break out of this troubling era where people will change their political standards and values as they articulated them when it came to the opposition to allow their side leeway to do whatever they need to do to gain and stay in power?

Isn’t this now the NORM — and don’t the days when people such as Barry Goldwater held to firm, unyeilding principles in terms of big government and basic patriotic values kind of quaint, now?

And if there are no absolutes (just rip and read the talking points sent out by the RNC on the old talk show or incorporate them into your commentary to defend your side), what does it portend for the future?

As Don Henley wrote in the song “The Garden of Allah”, written long before this current climate of “win at any and all costs”:

There is no truth
There are no facts
Just data to be manipulated

The apologists for Karl Rove sound remarkably like the Clinton apologists these very same folks derided (correctly) for parsing “it depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is…”

It is amazing how the wheel turns and when it is “their man” under scrutiny tactics and statements that are deemed beyond the pale for their opponents to utter are completely valid arguments when it comes to “their main”.

I am disgusted.

“Winning” in a political game is not the be all to end all, for it comes to naught if we allow our culture and society to be destroyed by these childish tactics.

As I wrote in an email discussion earlier today with John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!:

I’m talking about leadership and what is best for the country, not what is best for party advantage.

Regardless of whether Rove committed a crime or not (did Clinton when he got an intern to go down on him in the Oval Office?), Bush said that leaks were unacceptable and not to be a part of his administration.

Regardless of whether Rove leaked the name, indirectly said “that guy’s wife” or whatever, Rove is the epitome of “party first and always” instead of “what is best for the country.”

Yes, I do not like Rove, I don’t like Howard Dean either.

I’ve never liked Bush, but I’m not calling for his resignation or impeachment, either.

The divisiveness in Washington is BAD for the country.

Regardless of “who started it” (and we can go back in history to the Civil War and the creation of the Republican party for “who did what first” until our fingers are bleeding from typing) *someone* has to take the lead and the first step to stop it.

The President says he’s a leader.

Here is his chance to lead instead of to force things on everyone by fiat.

A leader recognizes when you are in a hole, and understands that the first step to getting out of that hole is to stop digging.

How is this related to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghirab?

I’ll do the math for you; this one is from another email exchange with John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!:

The connection is that appearances are important.

At the moment, it appears that personal loyalty to Bush is more important to the President than anything else, including the rule of law.

That is why Rove should be fired. He represents all the abuses and divisiveness that has been encouraged (yes encouraged) during the Presidency of George W. Bush.

Personal loyalty should not override the rule of law. That is the method of the tin-pot dictators we decry, including Sadaam.

The connection with the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghirab?

Guantanamo Bay is a prison placed in that location to explicitly be outside the reach of US law (yes, I know several rulings subsequent to the set up of the prison have challenged if not overturned that contention, but it does not change the reason why the prison is located where it is).

If we say we are defending civilization and the rule of law, we then MUST be sure that we appear to be following the rule of law.

We must walk the walk that goes with talking the talk.

I had some responses to your post on Guantanamo this morning that I was going to put up at Random Fate:

Regarding psychological games on the prisoners/detainees/whatever, that must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. A cab driver picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong fare shouldn’t be subjected to the psychological “stresses” that a *known* high-level terrorist operative would be subject to.

Regarding any physical “stress”, I rule that out completely because it is far to easy for it to get out of hand. Even starting down that path is wrong in my eyes. It appears the approval of physical “stress” in Guantanamo at least set up the climate for the abuses of Abu Ghirab.

You know better than I do that the key to winning any war is not to kill the enemy, because it is impossible to kill each and every one of the enemy. The key is to destroy their will to fight.

We are providing great tools for our enemy to motivate their troops and recruit more suicidal fanatics and give them all a *greater* will to fight.

Step 1: stop digging

While you are correct in saying the world opinion drivers will “find something else” to decry, do we really need to give them reasons on a silver platter?

This may be the last chance for President George W. Bush to show true leadership, to show he truly is a “uniter, not a divider”, for all his actions to this point have been to push through his agenda with no consideration for the beliefs of those who think differently.

In other words, his actions have been those of a divider, not a uniter, in complete contrast to his promises of being a uniter, not a divider.

Which actions will you applaud, and which will you choose to heap improbation upon?

True leadership is not always easy or expedient, nor is it always on the path that will promote the interests of one’s political allies, supporters, and fellow travelers.

However, the nation needs true leadership.

It is past time for President George W. Bush to show us all this kind of true leadership.

Will he step up to the challenge, or will his apologists continue to resort to the word-parsing they so rightfully condemned as a bad legacy of the Clinton years but which truly originated in the Nixon era?

It remains to be seen, but the question still remains:

Which will you push for?

Technorati Tags: opinion